Gaedeke Holdings VII LTD et al v. Thrower et al

Filing
858

ORDER denying 840 plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) and 841 plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Final Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 3/9/2018. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GAEDEKE HOLDINGS VII, LTD., and
GAEDEKE OIL & GAS OPERATING,
LLC,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
LANDON SPEED, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-11-649-M
ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(b)(1)(B), filed November 15, 2017. On December 6, 2017, defendants Todd Baker and Landon
Speed (“Remaining Defendants”) filed their response, and on December 13, 2017, plaintiffs filed
their reply. Also before the Court is plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Final Order Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), filed November 15, 2017. On December 6, 2017, Remaining Defendants
filed their response, and on December 13, 2017, plaintiffs filed their reply. Based upon the parties’
submissions, the Court makes its determination.
I.
Background
From September 10, 2013 through September 20, 2013, a jury trial was held in this case,
and the jury returned its verdict on September 20, 2013. Various post-trial motions were filed, and
on January 30, 2014, the Court ruled on the post-trial motions and entered judgment in this case.
On February 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for costs and a motion for attorney fees and nontaxable costs. On February 19, 2014, the defendants filed a joint motion to stay plaintiffs’ motion
for costs and motion for attorney fees and non-taxable costs. On February 26, 2014, the Court
entered an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for costs and motion for attorney fees and non-taxable
costs without prejudice to refiling after the resolution of any appeals1 in this case.2 In its Order,
the Court further noted that “[t]he parties may file any motions for costs and/or motions for
attorney fees within fourteen (14) days of the resolution of all appeals in this case.” February 26,
2014 Order [docket no. 525] at 2. On February 27, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Rule 59 Motion to
Alter or Amend the Judgment or, in the Alternative, for New Trial on Damages.3 On April 21,
2014, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for new trial on damages and vacated the January 30,
2014 Judgment as to damages only.4
From December 1, 2015 through December 9, 2015, a jury trial on the issue of damages
was held in this case, and the jury returned its verdict on December 9, 2015. On December 11,
2015, the Court entered a new judgment in this case. On December 28, 2015, defendant Baker
Petroleum and Investments, Inc. filed a motion for costs. On December 31, 2015, plaintiffs filed
a Motion to Stay or Deny Without Prejudice Defendant Baker Petroleum’s Bill of Costs and
Motion for Costs Pending Resolution of Appeal.5 In its response to plaintiffs’ motion, defendant
Baker Petroleum stated that its bill of costs and associated motion were moot and that it had no
objection to the Court dismissing them without prejudice. Based upon the statement of defendant
At the time of the Court’s Order, defendants Landon Speed, Jim Ashford, Baker Petroleum and
Investments, Inc., and Todd Baker had filed a notice of appeal, but the time for filing a notice of
appeal had not expired as to the remaining parties.
2
In its Order, the Court quoted the Advisory Committee Notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54 as follows: “If an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the court may rule on the claim for
fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without prejudice, directing under
subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new period for filing after the appeal has been resolved.”
3
On March 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and defendant Mayhem Oil & Gas, Inc.
filed a notice of appeal.
4
On May 15, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the pending
appeals.
5
In their motion, plaintiffs referenced this Court’s February 26, 2014 Order.
1
2
Baker Petroleum, the Court dismissed the bill of costs and associated motion without prejudice.
See January 22, 2016 Order [docket no. 804].
On January 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On January 19, 2016, defendants
Todd Baker and Landon Speed filed a notice of cross appeal. On March 30, 2017, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit entered its order and judgment affirming this Court’s
judgment. On April 13, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees and non-taxable costs and
a motion for costs. This Court denied plaintiffs’ motions as untimely, finding as follows:
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, and based upon
Rule 54(d)(2)(B) and the Advisory Committee Notes, the Court
finds that while this Court’s February 26, 2014 Order established a
deadline for filing motions for attorney fees and costs after the
resolution of any appeals in this case, this order was filed prior to
the motion for new trial on damages being filed, prior to the Court
granting the motion for new trial on damages, and prior to the Court
entering a new judgment on December 11, 2015. The Advisory
Committee Notes clearly and expressly indicate that the entry of a
new judgment following the granting of a motion for a new trial
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 triggers the running (for a
second time) of the fourteen day time period set forth in Rule
54(d)(2)(B). See, e.g., Quigley v. Rosenthal, 427 F.3d 1232, 123637 (10th Cir. 2005) (finding same portion of Advisory Committee
Notes indicated entry of judgment following reversal on appeal
triggered running for second time of fourteen day time period set
forth in Rule 54(d)(2)(B)). Plaintiffs’ motions for attorney fees and
costs, therefore, were to be filed on or before December 28, 2015.
Because plaintiffs’ motions were not filed until April 13, 2017, the
Court finds these motions should be denied as untimely.
October 24, 2017 Order [docket no. 839] at 3-4.
II.
Discussion
Plaintiffs now move this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), for
an order extending the time in which plaintiffs may file their applications for attorney fees and
costs to within fourteen (14) days of the Court’s order or, in the alternative, move this Court,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6), to modify its October 24, 2017 Order
3
to permit plaintiffs to file their motions for attorney fees and costs within fourteen (14) days of the
Court’s modified order.
A.
Rule 6(b)(1)(B) motion
Plaintiffs assert that while the Court has now clarified that it did not intend by its February
26, 2014 Order to extend the time for filing any motions for attorney fees and costs until disposition
of all appeals in the case, they genuinely and reasonably understood that the Court intended them
to wait until “all appeals in this case” were decided before doing so. Plaintiffs further assert that
while they believe their construction of the Court’s February 26, 2014 Order is objectively correct,
any mistake by them in understanding the Court’s intent was inadvertent, made in good faith, and
excusable, and warrants Rule 6(b)(1)(B) relief. Remaining Defendants contend that plaintiffs have
failed to show excusable neglect for not timely seeking their fees and costs. Remaining Defendants
further contend that plaintiffs cannot establish excusable neglect because this Court has already
found the controlling rule is clear and/or because plaintiffs made a tactical choice not to timely file
their motions for attorney fees and costs.
Rule 6(b)(1)(B) provides: “When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the
court may, for good cause, extend the time: . . . (B) on motion made after the time has expired if
the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). “[I]t is well
established that inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, and mistakes construing the rules do not
constitute excusable neglect for purposes of Rule 6(b)”. Quigley v. Rosenthal, 427 F.3d 1232,
1238 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted).
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that plaintiffs have not
shown excusable neglect. Specifically, the Court finds that while plaintiffs were mistaken in their
understanding of the Court’s February 26, 2014 Order, it was plaintiffs’ ignorance and/or mistake
4
regarding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B) that ultimately caused their motions for
attorney fees and costs to be untimely. Further, as stated in the Court’s October 24, 2017 Order,
the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 54 “clearly and expressly indicate that the entry of a new
judgment following the granting of a motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59 triggers the running (for a second time) of the fourteen day time period set forth in Rule
54(d)(2)(B).” October 24, 2017 Order at 3 (emphasis added). Based upon the Tenth Circuit’s
decision in Quigley, the Court finds that plaintiffs’ ignorance and/or mistake regarding Rule
54(b)(2)(B) does not constitute excusable neglect for purposes of Rule 6(b). Accordingly, the
Court finds that plaintiffs’ request for an extension of time pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(B) should be
denied.
B.
Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) motion
Plaintiffs assert that while the Court has now clarified that it did not intend by its February
26, 2014 Order to extend the time for filing any motions for attorney fees and costs until disposition
of all appeals in the case, they genuinely and reasonably understood that the Court intended them
to wait until “all appeals in this case” were decided before doing so. Plaintiffs further assert that
while they believe their construction of the Court’s February 26, 2014 Order is objectively correct,
any mistake by them in understanding the Court’s intent was inadvertent, made in good faith, and
excusable, and warrants Rule 60(b) relief. Additionally, plaintiffs assert that their reliance upon
the Court’s February 26, 2014 Order in waiting to file their motions for attorney fees and costs is
at least excusable neglect. Finally, plaintiffs assert the Court should grant relief under the
independent basis of Rule 60(b)(6). Remaining Defendants contend that plaintiffs have failed to
establish excusable neglect. Remaining Defendants further contend that justice does not require
that the Court exercise its discretion to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
5
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6) provides: “On motion and just terms, the
court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for
the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . . . (6) any other
reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1),(6). “Relief under Rule 60(b) is extraordinary
and may only be granted in exceptional circumstances.” Bud Brooks Trucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges
Trucking Co., 909 F.2d 1437, 1440 (10th Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted). Additionally,
relief under Rule 60(b)(6) “is even more difficult to attain and is appropriate only when it offends
justice to deny such relief.” Yapp v. Excel Corp., 186 F.3d 1222, 1232 (10th Cir. 1999) (internal
quotations and citation omitted).
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that plaintiffs have not
set forth any exceptional circumstances warranting relief. As set forth above, the Court finds that
plaintiffs have not shown excusable neglect, and, thus, relief is not warranted under Rule 60(b)(1).
Additionally, the Court finds it does not offend justice to deny plaintiffs’ requested relief in this
case. The Court, therefore, finds that relief is not warranted under Rule 60(b)(6).
III.
Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’ Motion for
Extension of Time Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) [docket no. 840] and plaintiffs’ Motion
for Relief from Final Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) [docket no. 841].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of March, 2018.
6

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.